site_freeze

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the 5-10 minute activation latency. It does not, however, state that the freeze is reversible via site_unfreeze, nor that it affects site availability, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action in one short sentence, followed by the latency caveat and a compact Args block. No wasted prose, though the Args block restates the schema instead of only adding missing semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers both parameters plus the activation delay. The gap is lifecycle context — that this is reversible and how it affects the site — which is material for a state-changing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It documents both parameters: site_id (trivially) and excluded_paths as 'paths where changes remain allowed', which is more informative than the bare schema title 'Excluded Paths'. It still does not specify path format (absolute vs relative, glob support).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Блокировка изменений файлов сайта') that an agent can distinguish from other site operations. However, it never names or contrasts itself with its natural siblings site_unfreeze and site_is_frozen, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The existence of site_unfreeze and site_is_frozen in the sibling list means an agent must guess how this tool relates to the freeze/unfreeze lifecycle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.